New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ARTHUR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK and MARGARET PARISI McGOWN, J.H.C., #2001-016-037, Claim No. 103706, Motion No. M-63116


Synopsis


Claim alleging Housing Court judicial misconduct was dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2001-016-037
Claimant(s):
NORA ARTHUR
Claimant short name:
ARTHUR
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK and MARGARET PARISI McGOWN, J.H.C.
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103706
Motion number(s):
M-63116
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Nora Arthur
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 16, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The claim of Nora Arthur arises from her dissatisfaction with a Decision and Order rendered by a New York County Housing Court Judge. This is defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction because claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of §11 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act") as well as under the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Arthur's claim consists of one page of conclusory statements about the judge, e.g., that she "denied me my right to a fair, speedy, unbias[ed] and separate trial," "abuse of judicial powers," "libel - numerous false statements contained in Decision and Order dated October 31st, 2000," "acting in concert," "failure to execute oath of office," etc. Attached to the claim is the October 31, 2000 Decision and Order in which Arthur's motion for civil penalties against the management company of her building and HPD were denied.

Section 11 of the Act provides in relevant part that "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and the total sum claimed . . ." "Conclusory or general allegations . . . that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet [the] requirements [of §11 of the Act]." Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767-68, 433 NYS2d 646, 648 (4th Dept 1980). From what has been submitted by Arthur, it is virtually impossible to determine what forms the basis of her claim and she has failed to comply with §11 of the Act. This Court thus lacks jurisdiction over the claim. See, e.g., Cannon v State of New York, 163 Misc 2d 623, 622 NYS2d 177 (Ct Cl 1994). The issue of judicial immunity need not be reached.

Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-63116 be granted and claim no. 103706 be dismissed.




May 16, 2001
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]Along with the claim, the Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and Exhibits A and B. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.